Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v16_6/v16no609.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Sat, 22 May 93 05:14:06
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #609
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Sat, 22 May 93       Volume 16 : Issue 609

Today's Topics:
                Adaptive Optics (was Space Marketing)
                   Impediments to NASA productivity
     Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
                           murder in space
                           Orion Spacecraft
                       Patriot/video/sat games
            Refueling GRO (was Re: HST Servicing Mission)
                      Space Marketing -- Boycott
            Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (4 msgs)
                       SSF Termination *RUMOR*
                  Tom's suggestion (was Pat's plan)
                               Zzzzzz!

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 17:08:48 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Adaptive Optics (was Space Marketing)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Guenther Eichhorn) writes:

>> That's extremely doubtfull: Adaptive optics require moving the
>> optical elements around with cycle times (including time for
>> vibrations to die down) of order 10-50 miliseconds. Unless you
>> make "the largest telescopes" out of tens of thousands of seperate
>> pieces, active corrections will be of limited value to these
>> telescopes (judging from the expense and development problems
>> associated with the new, 36-element mirror, I don't think
>> thousands of elements is likely.)

>This is not what adaptive optics is all about.  In adaptive optics a small
>segmented
>mirror ( <= 10 cm diameter) is used to correct for atmospheric disturbances.

Exactly how small? Unless I'm very much mistaken, it can't be arbitrarily
small and the size scales with the size of the primary. 5 - 10cm
is typical of the current ~1m telescopes, but wouldn't you need
something more like 50 cm for a 5-m primary?

>...The sizes of the movable segments
>have to be the size of the scale length of atmospheric turbulence
>(typically called r-naught)
>which is on the order of 10 cm, imaged onto the deformable mirror.
>For a 5m telescope,
>this means you need about 50 elements across the deformable mirror.
>For a 10 cm
>deformable mirror this means an element size of 2 mm.  Such small elements can easily be
>moved with the necessary speed.

Does this mean you can have an arbitrarily small mirror, so long as
you could also make the individual elements arbitrarily small? I'm
not sure how you could: Can you actuate a 2mm mirror accurately
enough. I assume the distance it would have to be moved would
similarly be scaled down. Does that mean it has to be accurately
moved distances on the order of a micron?


>...There are already deformable mirrors with hundreds of
>elements in operation and they deliver impressive image improvements.
>It will not be long
>before deformable mirrors with the number of elements necessary for 2 - 3 m
>telescopes are
>available.

But how quickly can these hundreds of element arrays be adjusted?
The required time scale increases faster than linearly with
the observed frequency. All in all, I think my original remark
was reasonably accurate: Large (~5m) adaptive telescopes working
in the visible are still a long way away.

>...Together with the technique of artificial guide stars created by lasers this
>will indeed provide imaging from large telescopes close to the diffraction
>limit in the near
>future...

No offense, but the use of artificial guide stars is a bit ironic
given how this discussion strated: The ideal of orbital billboards,
and the morality of "corrupting" the night sky with bright, man-made
disturbances...

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 07:55:45 GMT
From: Jim Hart <[e-mail]>
Subject: Impediments to NASA productivity
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

[e-mail] writes writes an interesting document,
one which proposes some useful methods for reversing NASA's decline,
but at the same time unwittingly demonstrates several of the cultural
factors that are causing NASA to go down the tubes.

Some excerpts, with my comments:


>Most of the inefficiencies I have observed at NASA are
>the result of management decisions...

Let me guess: Ken is not a manager. :-)  Later he says:

>    If we are really committed to improving efficiency at NASA, we
>    would change our regulations to encourage supervisors to FIRE
>    people who will not work to make room for folks who care.

That very same management that botched up NASA now gets
to FIRE at will and of course they'll fire the bootlickers
and keep the competetent motivated folks right?  I'm afraid with
real people solutions are somewhat more complicated than going
around yelling FIRE, but it does sound nice and tough, military
style.

>When we desire to decrease an office's (or a Program's)
>budget, we never manage to fund the changes which can increase
>efficiency; we just cut the budget.

But the whole point in increasing efficiency is to decrease
the ratio of $/(something valuable).  If those changes do
not *in fact* increase efficiency, you've just *decreased*
efficiency by funding them.  Naming something an "efficiency
proposal" doesn't make it so; how do you know until you've
tried it?

>examine our JSC Employee Suggestion Program, where less than
>10% of the suggestions are implemented.

IF you had spent c. 10 times as much money, so you
could implement 100% of these changes, then we would have ended up
spending less money? Or might the problem lie instead in *which*
10% were chosen?

>As W. Edwards Deming says with regard to
>quality, "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it."

I'll agree with you here.  Unfortuneately, Deming was talking about
repetitive manufacturing work, not R&D.   Unless we're talking about
things like computer performance, most R&D benchmarks in the private
sector are abstract: for example, how much will it sell at what
price.  It would be interesting to see NASA set up some internal
market-like incentives, but that would entail a huge (and beneficial)
cultural change.

>Each Agency would be
>expected to define the criteria by which their efficiency is to be
>measured.  For NASA, that might include number of patents, number of
>Shuttle flights which land, number of scientific articles published in
>refereed scientific journals, amount of useful scientific data returned
>from space, number of planets explored (in terms of pixels, square
>kilometers, and image resolution), number of test flights of
>experimental aircraft, or other measures of our productivity, divided
>by our annual budget.

These are good suggestions.  Unfortuneately, any of them
pursued in isolation can be destructive: useless patents filed
just for the sake of boosting the patent number, scientific
journals whose main raison d'aitre is to get NASA scientists
published and get those numbers up (alas, this already exists),
etc.  One solution to this problem is a large number of diverse
measurements each with a small weight, so that one would not look
good by trying to push one number to the exclusion of others.
One of the great things about this list is its diversity.

> Each productivity metric could be given a value
>in dollars which gives a measure of its value to the country.

Aah, there's the rub.  How does one measure "value to the
country?"  By how NASA projects fare in political opinion
polls?

>suggestions will increase efficincy 257%, guaranteed.

You were doing pretty good up until here.  "Guarunteed"?  Does
this mean you will personally pay for any shortfalls?  You see,
out here in the private sector "guaruntee" is an actual promise,
eg that you will get your money back; it is not just rhetoric to
be thrown around in a policy paper.

>3.  Payroll

Does any employee think they're paid *too much*?  :-)  One thing
to keep in mind is that the cost of living at many NASA sites
(Houston, Ohio, Alabama, etc.) is often 20% lower than in Silicon
Valley and other high-tech  spots when comparing these salaries.
Somehow I don't think NASA will magically improve just by giving y'all
a raise, but nice try anyway. :-)

>    We should propose a list of Agency goals to Congress and the
>    President, and request their help in ensuring that these goals
>    match what our ultimate customers, the American people, want out of
>    NASA.

But this is no longer funny.  Sir, customers
are people who can *choose for themselves* what they want to buy.
I do not get to choose how much taxes I have to pay,
or how much of it should go towards your "investements".  Since
NASA has no real customers, it does not lose revenue when it f*cks up,
or gain revenue when it succeeds, as can be clearly shown by looking
at NASA's budget during Apollo and directly after Challenger.  Please
keep the Orwellian theft of the language of private enterprise confined
to the jokers in the White House, for God's sake.

>    Our nation lacks commitment for our space program.

Gosh, I admit it, it's all our fault.  So sue us.   :-)

>    We need the whole-hearted
>    cooperation of Congress, and more discipline than Congress has ever
>    been willing to demonstrate.

Don't forget about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus, they can help out
too.

>    Our record for accurately
>    estimating the cost of gargantuan projects is abyssmal.  Every time
>    we mouth such an estimate, we tell a lie.

On the other hand, I can forgive you.  (Well, I'm not faulting you
anyway, just the NASA culture).  This statement is refreshingly
candid.

>    If we can't agree on goals in space, maybe we shouldn't be there.

And this may be the prime thing to fault in NASA culture.  Look, we
*don't* agree on goals in space.  Some folks want to look at nice
pictures from there, some want to do science, some want to travel
there, some start industries, some go live there, some just make
money.  All worthwhile goals, for some people.   These goals can
often be worked on together, they often have common means (eg launch
vehicles).   Conflicts should be peacefully resolved, see the
astro vs. adsat thread. If NASA can't work on such a broad, diverse
set of goals maybe it shouldn't be there.

>8. Multi-year funding

But there's a reason for funding each year: accountability.  What
happens if NASA botches the job, how many years does it take us
to correct the problem?  That's a critical issue that needs to be
addressed if we are to go to multi-year funding.

Overall, it's good to see you attack these problems, keep it up.


Jim Hart
[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 17:19:55 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Liberal President murders spaceflight? (was Re: SDIO kaput!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:

>In article <1tepf5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Pat) writes:
>>In article <1tdnpb$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Charles J. Divine) writes:
>>|Carter himself did not seem that protechnology in general.  His
>>|general approach to problems seemed to be puritanical preaching --
>>|not let's see what we can do.

>>Let's not forget,  Carter was a nuclear engineer,
>>and seemed a whole lot more realistic  about what could be done
>>as opposed to reagan  who had no idea  what the laws of physics were.

>Carter' knowledge of nuclear engineering corresponds to that of the
>person who runs a locomotive about what is usually called engineering.
>He was not antitechnology, but he had the layman's attitude about R&D.

I don't believe that that is strictly true, given what I know about
the required knowledge for officers in the Nuclear Navy during Admiral
Rickover's time.  The folks in charge of commercial nuclear reactors
all over the country got their training the same place Jimmy Carter
got his.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 15:50:12 GMT
From: Dillon Pyron <[e-mail]>
Subject: murder in space
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Harri P J Tavaila) writes:
>Achurist ([e-mail]) wrote:
>>
>> If you murdered someone in space, whose juristiction is it. i.e who
>> will prosecute you for it? The boundaries of individual countries
>> stop in the upper atmosphere so what happens???
>>
>Every space vehicle falls under juristiction of the country that
>launched it.
>
>The launcher country is defined as the nation that rules the land

>area on which the launch took place.  If the launch was not from
>ground (air and sea launches) the nationality is determined by the
>nationality of the launch carriers (aeroplains or ships).
>
>Mind you, I'm not sure what is the position concerning Antractica..

In general, you have not left the country you left until you enter the country
you are entering.  Confused?  If not, join the foreign service.

I learned of the rule (treaty law, I believe, or Admiralty) when a friend of my
parents gave birth enroute from London to New York on a US flag carrier.  The
child had dual citizenship.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
[phone] (when I'm here)     |
[phone] (when I'm home)     |The TI GBU-28 redefines overpenetration.
[e-mail]          |
PADI DM-54909                     |

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 14:45:35 -0400
From: Kevin William Ryan <[e-mail]>
Subject: Orion Spacecraft
Newsgroups: sci.space

    Incidentally, if you can pick up a copy of Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelles
"Footfall", there's a fun description of an Orion based ship in action. The
evil nasties have come from outer space and we need a _big_ interceptor...

                                             kwr

Internet: [e-mail]

P.S.    My major annoyance with ther final fight scenes between the Orion and
the fusion powered enemy ship is that the Orion doesn't really use any of
its missiles - missiles which were earlier described as being loaded. But
it's a lot of fun anyway.

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 93 17:41:24 GMT
From: fred j mccall 575-3539 <[e-mail]>
Subject: Patriot/video/sat games
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tom) writes:

>Thomas Clarke writes:
>>>I expect Hollywood has exaggerated for dramatic effect.  X-ray
>>>vision from orbit is just not available.
>>>I think the imagery was supposed to be in the infrared.

>Dean Adams replies
>>>Yes... the main "exaggeration" I thought of is that they were showing
>>>it as LIVE VIDEO.  I doubt very much if that is how the sats work.

>Fred sez:
>>>I think you can safely bet that there is real-time imagery capability
>>>available.

>Dean again;
>>>YES, but "real-time imaging" does not have to mean live 30 fps video.

>Fred;
>>YES, but is it your contention that because it does not *have* to mean
>>live 30 fps video that it *does not* mean 30 fps video?  In other
>>words, are you asserting as fact that no such system exists?

>YES, but he said he doubted it, not that it IN FACT, doesn't exist.
>Are you asserting as fact that such a system does exist?  Or just that
>you'd bet that it does?

I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of <insert potential
classified object or capability of choice>.

>In my mind the big exaggeration was how the view during that video-
>game like scene was always from directly above.  They watched the
>event occur for a good 3 minutes or so, so the satellite would have
>crossed a good portion of the sky, from the camp's POV, so why
>wasn't the view from an angle at first, then straight down, then
>from the opposite angle?

See my note about this.  Such a view would probably never be attempted
when directly overhead due to the high slew rates required.  Any such
views, assuming they existed, would only be taken from lower on the
horizon to eliminate the peak rate of change of the viewing angle that
the satellite would be required to compensate for.

>Also, what luck, having the meat of the strike occur during the 3 minutes
>of the entire orbit when the satellite could watch! :-)

Longer than 3 minutes, I think.  They explained this in the book, by
the way.  The raid was specifically planned to occur when the
satellite was 'up'.  Of course, in the book it was French 'paras' and
not the British SAS that did the raid.

>That was my favorite scene in the movie, BTW, but I'm not sure why.  I
>found it pretty haunting, the way it depersonalized death so much.

Well, in the book, Ryan didn't care for it much, either.  Personally,
after having read the book I was very disappointed in the movie.  I
understand that Tom Clancy wasn't particularly happy about it, either.


--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 1993 16:38:16 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Refueling GRO (was Re: HST Servicing Mission)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Gladu)
writes:
|>
|>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Henry
|>Spencer) writes:
|>> The current story is "no servicing mission is planned".  The thing *is*
|>> designed for it, and has had some annoying equipment failures that
|>> would be nice to fix, but at the moment the folks involved seem to
|>> think that it will function adequately for a suitable lifetime without
|>> a visit.
|>
|>One of the objectives of the EVA performed by Dave Leestma and Kathy
|>Sullivan
|>(I forget the mission number) was a kind of feasibility test for on-orbit
|>refueling.  I don't remember if they actually transferred any
|>liquids/gasses,
|>it was more of a test to see if they could manipulate the connectors and
|>hoses, in zero-g, while wearing space suits.
|>
|>During the months of prep for this EVA, the people (Fred Dawn's [this man is
|>|>brilliant] materials group) in the Manned Systems Division at JSC
|>(Building
|>7) did some tests on Space Suit Assembly (SSA) materials.  There were one-
|>foot squares of all of the layers of the SSA, made from Class I (flight
|>quality) materials.  Also tested were helmets and visors.  They were placed
|>|>in a small vacuum chamber and had various propellants squirted on them.
|>The
|>worst affect was from (variant?) hydrazine on the helmet and visors.  Saying
|>|>that "it went through" is putting it mildly.  Picture the Alien blood
|>spatters in the first "Alien" film.
|>
|>The hydrazine had more trouble getting through all the layers of the SSA:
|>

Real intersting info.  Just out of curiosity, what kind of fuel does MIR use?
I know that they don't have Cosmonauts out in the area while they are
re-fueling
from a Progress, but nonetheless, it still seems like a pretty dangerous
activity for the station itself if some connector was not on tight.

Burns

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 93 17:27:50 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing -- Boycott
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry

Follow-ups to sci.space

In article <1th4tp$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug S. Caprette) writes:
>>But the Soviets used to get alot of public relations milage out
>>of such a dim, hard to spot object: Whenever they had "guests"
>>for another country on their space station, they always made
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>sure the station could be seen from the guest's home nation. They
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>then pointed out the point of light and reminded people that one
>>of their countrymen was on it...

>Just how did they make sure of that?

Their station is in a highly inclined orbit, and occasionally
visable anywhere between 65 degrees latitude North and South.
Because of the way the orbit processes, a given city or country
will be directly under the station's path for a few days about once
every few months. The Soviets were carefull to time their missions
so that when a (say) Cuban kosmonaut was on orbit, Cuba was directly
under the station's path. In the case of Cuba and Viet Nam, they
actually had to ignore some launch safety rules to due so (if
something goes wrong, the kosmonauts may wind up making an emergency
landing near the Chinese border, instead of reaching orbit. In the
above cases the emergency landing, if needed, would have occured
at night.)

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1993 17:41:20 GMT
From: "Jeffrey L. Cook" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,sci.space

In a previous article, [e-mail] (Nick Haines) says:

>In article <1tdpk5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>
>   The _only_ difference between this structure and any other proposed
>   space structure is that this one would contain a commercial message.
>   It might say "Coke" instead of "NASA".
>
>I have never seen, here or on any other forum, any proposal from NASA
>or any other space agency to place mile-scale objects in very low
>earth orbits...

Point well taken.  I'm not a space scientist, and I'm not familiar with
actual written proposals submitted to NASA for official review, so I
can't comment on what you say.  However, that's not quite what I had in
mind when I wrote "proposed space structure", which I admit may have
been misleading.

I was referring to the kinds of huge structures that Carl Sagan is fond
of depicting, or the space stations and starships appearing in science
fiction movies.  By comparing how people react to seeing these space
structures on the screen with their reaction to the proposed billboard,
we can begin to identify what their _real_ objection is.

We can imagine sitting in a theater watching a movie.  The audience sits
in wonderous awe as a space station slowly cartwheels across the sky.
Now, what would be their reaction if instead of a space station, there
was a picture of a Coke bottle?  Some might hate it, some might like it,
others might just be amused and forget about it.  My point is that the
reaction of the majority of people is based solely on the commercial
content of the message, not on the presence of an artificial structure
"obstructing" their view of the sky.

>...The only possible exception to this general rule is the CIS
>proposal for mirrors to improve lighting in northern areas; even those
>mirrors are proposed for a much higher (and more eccentric) orbit than
>LEO. Note that very vocal objection was also heard when those mirrors
>were first proposed.

I also noticed that when the prototype was actually in orbit, the
objections were far more subdued, replaced by excited reports from
people who had managed to see it.  I suspect it would be the same with
this billboard.

>Also, I happen to think that astronomers have a valid point: if this
>billboard is not visible enough to be a problem to them, nobody will
>buy space on it. Bear in mind that their observations would be badly
>affected even by unilluminated large objects in LEO, because of the
>power of their instruments: scattered light reflecting from a
>billboard would be enough to badly affect their observations. Existing
>satellites are already a problem to them.

I don't have any specific numbers to confirm or deny your point, but I
would be very surprised if the effect of light reflected from an
_unilluminated_ object in space wasn't vastly overwhelmed by local
atmospheric conditions and random variations in sky brightness.  The
object could have an impact if it actually crossed a telescope's field
of view, but as has been mentioned, it would be an extremely rare
occurrence, and could be easily predicted.

>If the billboard were in a very highly inclined orbit such that it
>were only overhead at twilight (following twilight around the Earth,
>as another poster has suggested), that would largely answer the
>astronomers' complaint (but not the complaint of others who wish the
>night sky to remain largely pristine).

I suspect there is no argument that will convince everybody.  I can only
hope that people will look at and respond to the _facts_, as you have.

Jeff Cook                            [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1993 17:46:13 GMT
From: "Jeffrey L. Cook" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines

In a previous article, [e-mail] (OPIRG) says:

>In article <1tdpk5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
>>
>>On the contrary, the luddite communist technophobes ruled the roost for
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>almost three-quarters of a century in the former Soviet Union, and
>>turned their beautiful country into a toilet.
>
>You mean the people who brought us Sputnik?

Yes.  However, the "luddite communist technophobes" phrase was Victor
Yodaiken's characterization of them; I wasn't interested in taking issue
with his view.  If you think it's not an accurate description, you
should argue the point with Victor and decide exactly what you think
they _should_ be called, and we can take it from there.

>>  Billowing smokestacks are symbolic of their failure, not our success.
>
>Ever been to Detroit?

Yes.  Ever been to Magnitogorsk?  No?  Me neither.  You couldn't pay me
enough to go there for any reason.

Yeltsin admits that pollution has rendered 15% of the Soviet Union's
enormous land mass unfit for human habitation.  Take a look at the
4/13/92 issue of _U.S. News and World Report_ to see why "toilet" is a
charitable description of the situation in Russia.  I'd rather live in
Detroit than _anywhere_ in Russia.

Jeff Cook                            [e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1993 18:29:25 GMT
From: StevenJ <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines

From the looks of things in this thread, maybe it's time to change the
subject heading or split things off into separate discussion.


Steve J. White                            Team Banzai
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail]                  rock&roll physics

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1993 18:31:22 GMT
From: victor yodaiken <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull.
Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,sci.astro,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.headlines

In article <1tj4h5$[e-mail]| [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
|
|In a previous article, [e-mail] (OPIRG) says:
|
|>In article <1tdpk5$[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes:
|>>
|>>On the contrary, the luddite communist technophobes ruled the roost for
|>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|>>almost three-quarters of a century in the former Soviet Union, and
|>>turned their beautiful country into a toilet.
|>
|>You mean the people who brought us Sputnik?
|
|Yes.  However, the "luddite communist technophobes" phrase was Victor
|Yodaiken's characterization of them; I wasn't interested in taking issue

You are sadly mistaken.


--


[e-mail]

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 1993 16:53:25 GMT
From: Andy Cohen <[e-mail]>
Subject: SSF Termination *RUMOR*
Newsgroups: sci.space

There's a real fishey rumor floating around that a termination notice has
been sent to the prime SSF contractors.......


To those out there who may know...there's gotta be someone on the net with
enough connections.....


Help me dispel or confirm the rumor please!

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 15:29:27 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Tom's suggestion (was Pat's plan)

>I said;
>>>When I have to page through 150 lines of flame to get to one or two
>>>lines of actual discussion...

>Fred replies;
>>Perhaps things would cool out if you could keep your fine Italian hand
>>out of it.  Not like you're exactly an unbiased observer, is it,
>>Tommy?

I replied;
>How's that?  I'm not sure what's more confusing here, that you think I'm
>Italian (a reference I've missed, apparently) or that your actions
>depend so heavily upon mine.

Fred responds;
>Take a course in English idioms (re: 'fine Italian hand').  Then take
>one in logic (re: everything else).  That should help you with your
>confusion.

You might also explain what you meant.  It would probably take less space
than what you wrote above, too.  If your actions don't depend on mine (at
least in part) then how would 'staying out of it', by which I guess you
mean not making any suggestions, have any bearing on how much you and Pat
flame each other?  You both have your free will.

T:
>>I'm trying to be an unbiased observer.  All I said was that it would be a
>>lot easier, if there was a greater discussion/emotionalism ratio.

F:
>Except that given your past interactions and motivations here, this is
>rather like the person throwing gasoline on a fire claiming they were
>trying to put it out.  Sorry you got so upset about my remarks about
>Nick Szabo, ever so long ago, Tommy, but that's the way it is.  All
>the nattering in the world on your part isn't going to change it.

>Now go away.  I've quit accepting mail from you, which I disliked
>doing in case you might actually say something worthwhile (unlikely as
>that seems).  I would dislike flushing you entirely for the same
>reason, but by all means, suit yourself.

Well, Fred, I could tell you have some very strong feelings about this,
from reading your eloquent post.  When I awoke, I realized that you have
apparently judged my suggestion (to tone down the flames for the sake of
the discussion) on something other than it's merits, since you don't
really refer to it at all.  That's too bad, since I think others besides
myself would benefit from such a change.

You needn't reply.  Unless you've changed you mind, any more on this won't
mean much.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 May 93 16:07:40 EDT
From: Tom <[e-mail]>
Subject: Zzzzzz!

>>>>Fred responds:
>>>>>Hey, a gadget designed to make you barf and it's named PAT.  Now,
>>>>>that's so nigh-on to a perfect straight line that I can't pass up
>>>>>comment.  ;-)

>>>>This from the same guy that interprets anyone's jokes as 'flame-bait'.
>>>>Control your emotions, Fred.

>>>My emotions are fine, Tommy, but you seem to be having trouble with
>>>yours...

>>Not really.  I feel no compulsion to flame or insult people for little or
>>no reason, ad infinitum.

>Funny, but neither do I.

Funny, but you sure do apply your "I only flame back" rule a lot, and
with inconsistent criteria, and vindictively, for someone who doesn't.

>Of course, I'm not the one who inititated
>several long threads of snotty mail and is now back to sniping in
>public now that his mail is no longer being accepted, am I?  That guy
>is named Tommy Mac.

No, you were the one who responded with several long threads of snotty
insults, all of which avoided the one question that was the crux of the
personal problems you have with me that compels you to bring this issue
back to the net.  The question, in case you forgot;  Why do you apply
your rule so vehemently, and steadfastly, if you don't like to flame?

If you don't want to answer it, just say so.  When you get upset and
flame about it, never even addressing it, it makes it sound a lot more
important than it probably is.

>>>[Once again, someone who calls sniping at me 'jokes' and my doing the
>>>same thing back 'flames'.  Shove it, Tommy.]

>>I didn't call anything 'jokes'.  You did, when you make comments like the
>>above, but then you get all bent if someone does the same towards you.
>>Wintess your referral to what they thought was joking as 'sniping'.  Why
>>the double standard?

>There isn't one.  Why yours?  And have you figured out why I asked you
>the "are you still beating your girlfriend" question yet?

If Pat calls it a joke, you call it 'flame-bait'.  If you do the same
thing (posting jibes out of the blue) and I say it's flame-bait, using
your criteria, you get all upset, claim I'm 'sniping', and tell me
to 'shove off'.  If that's not a double standard, what is?

Yes, I have figured it out.  You like to ask insulting questions.  Attaching
any more importance to it than that seems a waste of time to me.  Of course,
you will probably tell me I'm incorrect, and should take a class in
rhetorical questions, rather than telling us all what great, profound things
go on in your mind that gives you such eloquence when you insult people.

-Tommy Mac
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists,
[e-mail] 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 609
------------------------------